to the profits made by the insurance company which averages very high. If the Capper-Fitzgerald plan were adopted in all the States, a saving to the employers of from thirty to fifty million dollars annually would be effected. Is it any wonder that the insurance companies are interested? The wonder is why the employers of the District of Columbia do not realize this opportunity to save to themselves this amount of money, for this saving would be reflected to them in a reduction of premiums, or in it would be reflected in an increase of the compensation to be paid to the employee, and ultimately it would be reflected in a reduction of the price of the product of the industry which would inure to the benefit of the public. The Bruce-Underhill plan is a plan which takes another thirty to fifty million from the people annually and deposits it into the bulging pockets of insurance companies. The workmen's compensation laws were enacted to eliminate those who were standing between the employer and employee and profiting off of both of them.

What is to be gained if one system is thrown away and a new one adopted only to find another third party standing between the employer and employee demanding 40 cents out of every dollar for settling their differences, when there is a perfectly fair and equitable agency-the State itself that is willing to assume this responsibility for 4 cents out of every dollar, and still make money. In Ohio the original fund was practically nothing and they have administered this law to the absolute and almost universal satisfaction of employer and employee and have amassed a reserve fund of many millions of dollars.

I favor the Capper-Fitzgerald bill for I have seen the principle applied in my State of Ohio and know it works almost to perfection. I favor it because I know both sides of controversies between employer and employee. I oppose the insurance plan for I do not favor the substitution of the employer who usually has some humanity about him, for a soulless mercenary corporation which deals only in money and figures. The State has recognized that the employee needs assistance when he is injured. He should get this assistance from some source other than an insurance adjuster whose salary and position and record of efficiency depends upon how little he can pay the injured man.

Mr. LAMPERT. Mr. Andrews, do you wish to make any further statement?

Mr. ANDREWS. No; I think not.

Mr. LAMPERT. Then, if there is nobody else who wants to be heard, the committee will stand adjourned subject to call.

(Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, Thursday, March 22, 1928, the hearing was adjourned subject to call of the chairman.)

Hon. ARTHUR CAPPER,

APPENDIX

WASHINGTON, D. C., January 9, 1928.

Chairman Committee on the District of Columbia

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. SIR: The Commissioners of the District of Columbia have the honor to submit the following on Senate bill 1653, Seventieth Congress, first session, entitled "A bill relating to assuring compensation for accidental injuries or death of

employees in certain occupations in the District of Columbia," which you referred to them for report as to the merits of the bill and the propriety of its passage. This bill proposes to provide compensation for injuries or death of employees in certain occupations in the District of Columbia due to accident. It is the opinion of the commissioners that there is need for legislation of this character and they believe that the provisions of this bill are well designed to cover the subject. They recommend favorable action on the bill.

Very truly yours,

PROCTOR L. DOUGHERTY, President Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia.

WASHINGTON, January 19, 1928.

Hon. ARTHUR CAPPER,

Chairman Committee on the District of Columbia,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

SIR: The Commissioners of the District of Columbia have the honor to submit the following on Senate bill 2025, Seventieth Congress, first session, entitled "A bill creating the District of Columbia insurance fund for the benefit of employees injured and the dependents of employees killed in employment, providing for the administration of such fund by the United States Employees' Compensation Commission, and authorizing an appropriation therefor," which you referred to them for report as to the merits of the bill and the propriety of its passage.

The bill proposes to provide compensation for injuries or death of employees in certain occupations in the District of Columbia, due to accident. In the opinion of the commissioners there is need for legislation of this character. They do not believe, however, that the administration of such a law should be placed under the United States Employees Compensation Commission. They believe such administration should be placed under the superintendent of insurance of the District of Columbia under the conditions named in House bill 5711 of the present Congress, on which they made a favorable report to the chairman of the House Committee on the District of Columbia under date of January 9, 1928. Very truly yours,

PROCTOR L. Dougherty, President Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia.

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR LABOR LEGISLATION

WORK ACCIDENTS IN WASHINGTON-1928

"1. It is wasteful:

(a) The State expends a large amount in fruitless litigation.

as

accidents,

only a small part of which is actually paid in settlement of accident claims.

"(c) The injured employees spend nearly half of what they get in settlements and damages to pay the costs of fighting for it.

"2. It is slow; recovery is long delayed, while the need is immediate.

"3. It fosters misunderstanding and bitterness between employer and employees.

"4. It encourages both parties to dishonest methods."

This conclusion on the results of handling industrial accidents without a compensation law was written over 20 years ago, summarizing a well-known investigation of accidents in Pittsburgh before Pennsylvania had such legislation. (The Pittsburgh Survey, Vol. II.-Work Accidents and the Law, by Crystal Eastman, p. 206.) Like all the other States but five, Pennsylvania years ago enacted a law of this type. But the summary might be applied without change to the condition found among the private employees of the capital of these United States in this year of grace 1928.

Bills to remedy this condition have been before Congress for seven years or more and hearings have been held, but final action has delayed. In order to show the everyday human results of industrial accidents in the District, while Congress dallies, the American Association for Labor Legislation has made a

small field investigation, continuing and supplementing a similar study in 1923-24. The study was carried on during about 60 days from the middle of January to the middle of March, 1928, a preliminary report appearing in the American Labor Legislation Review for March, 1928.

As the District of Columbia does not require any form of reporting industrial accidents, it was necessary to "pick them up" from various sources-current newspapers, court records, interviews with local leaders, and with the executives of social agencies. The ease with which 164 recent industrial accidents among 161 different persons were found in itself refutes the comment sometimes heard during the investigation that "It doesn't matter much if Washington doesn't have a compensation law since it has so little industry."

Where did the accidents occur? First and foremost, as might be expected, they occurred in the building trades, where the accident rate is generally higher than in any other ordinary occupation, even the railroad-train service. Each new large building erected in Washington may be expected to take its toll of human lives, while the absence of the pressure for safety exerted by the differential rates possible under workmen's compensation insurance leads to astoundingly careless practices. On one large building it was necessary to convey some material from the fourth to the sixth floor. Boards were put over the elevator shaft on top of which were laid concrete pans. A 16-year old boy was then stationed on the pans to receive the material and pass it along. The boards were too short and gave way, and the boy fell 60 feet down the shaft to a concrete floor. By a miracle he survived his internal injuries to bring suit for damages. Just a year after the accident-an unusually short period-he was awarded $550. The coming large Federal building program, in which all the actual construction will be carried on by private contractors, makes the accident, care, and prevention compensation law an especially urgent need at this time.

But outside the building trades a not inconsiderable amount of industrial development with its attendant hazards was found in the District. In a paper mill there was knowledge of one death and two mutilations within a comparatively recent period. Several woodworking plants are scattered over the city, in which severe cuts and infections, losses of fingers, and sometimes hands, and at least two instances of the loss of an eye through a bursting emery wheel, have been found. Two or three of these are almost in the shadow of Capitol Hill. In no case have they been found to aid the injured workmen in any way. The use of heavy machinery, with its accompanying dangers, has penetrated a number of occupations not usually thought of as industrial. Much heavy machinery is found in the laundries, the bakeries, and the printing establishments of the District. One young press feeder was ordered underneath a press to locate a noise in the machinery. He slipped on the oily floor and his right arm was caught, crushed, and made permanently useless. During his 18 months of disability his support came from the proceeds of a dance and a raffle held by his fellow unionists, as his suit for damages was not settled during that period. Elevator operators, the many truck and wagon drivers of all kinds, street-car men and employees of the steam railroad terminal are others exposed to obvious hazards. Nor can the dangers be dismissed by saying "employees should be more careful." As has been suggested, many accidents occur from the careless acts of fellow employees over whom the sufferer has no control, but who, under the common law, may destroy his chance to secure damages, or from the failure of his employer to adopt safety measures. Safety campaigns wait on the adoption of a compensation law.

Considerable groups of workmen were also found-painters and printersexposed to a more insiduous occupational danger-that of lead poisoning. For instance, the case of a painter of 45 is known to the investigator, a man with a wife and growing family, who lies hopelessly ill with this disease at his home in the outskirts of Washington. Stricken in October, he forced himself to continue work till December, since which time benefits from his trade-union have been his only support. The doctor holds out no hope for his recovery.

Other cases illustrate the occasional work accidents which befall the worker in supposedly safe_occupations. A saleswoman in a woman's clothing store was knocked to the floor unconscious when a piece of the ceiling fell on her. Failing other compensation for her injuries she brought suit, but the proprietor of the store had left for parts unknown by the time the papers were served, nearly three years after the accident. A porter in a drug store was working in the cellar and stuck a rusty nail in his foot. He supposed that the iodine and ointment supplied by one of the clerks took care of the injury until infection developed. died in about two weeks, leaving a widow, whose only hope of securing compen

He

sation for herself and her unborn child is through the uncertainties of a lawsuit. A woman was sent by an agency to act as waitress at the banquet of a community organization. The function was held in a dance hall with a highly po`ished floor, and the girl slipped and fell, breaking her arm badly. She has been unable to work for several weeks and a lawsuit will be necessary for her to get any compensation.

The incidents are not, of course, common, but the needs of the occasional victims are as great as in the more dangerous trades. If the danger of accident is rare in a given employment, under properly regulated workmen's compensation insurance, the protection of that employment is correspondingly cheap.

Another work hazard of occasional occurrence is that of being caught in some general catastrophe. This is well illustrated by the casualties among the musicians involved in the Knickerbocker Theater collapse, which is not included in any tabulation of cases because it took place in January, 1922, over six years previous to the time of writing this report. Seven musicians were killed outright in this disaster and four were seriously injured. Three of the latter were able to resume employment after a time, one only by having a special flute made, adjusted to the loss of one of his fingers. None could secure work in any of the theaters under the control of the Knickerbocker owners. The fourth injured man, a French-horn player, who had an arm torn off, has never been able to resume work and has been supported by his trade union. Law suits were brought in behalf of the victims of the catastrophe, but the engineers for the District, for the owners, and for the builders each assigned a different cause for the accident, and the judge dismissed all the suits.

The foregoing discussion will have shown, it is hoped, that there is an industria[ accident problem in the district. Its wide extent may also be gauged by estimating the number of persons who would come under a compensation act. This appears to be considerably greater than had been supposed. Instead of 100,000 the largest previous estimate, careful calculations give 144,000 as the number of persons who would be covered by an inclusive measure, such as the Blaine amendment to the longshoremen's act. It is necessary to take the number of persons gainfully employed in 1920, deducting, under the terms of the bill, farmers, domestic servants, and all employers and self-employed. The resulting figure is increased in proportion to the increase in population between 1920 and 1928, as estimated by the Census Bureau. A final deduction is made of the 60,000 Government employees in the District December 31, 1927. The resulting figure of 144,000 must form some approximation, it would seem, of the number of employees in private employments who would be covered by a compensation law.

Aside from the 21 cases found in the court records, which were studied from a little different point of view, perhaps the most important bit of information sought in the accident cases was, what compensation was received? The fact is known in 97 out of the 143 remaining cases, of which there is apparently not one that would not have been eligible to benefits under a compensation law. In just seven instances was compensation of any sort received from the employer without a lawsuit. During the investigation, indeed, statements were received about two bakeries, two food-products firms, and a public utility who were said to "take care" of their injured employees. Two of the men mentioned above had been employed by one of these firms and were, indeed, well cared for, having their medical bills paid as well as receiving pay while laid up and suitable jobs on returning to work. Yet a charitable organization reported that pending the outcome of a lawsuit, they were helping an injured man who had worked for the same company and who had never received anything from it. The typical answer to this inquiry was: "Nothing was received; my only outside help was the sick benefits from the union." One man, crippled for life by an accident, who had been foreman for the same firm for over 30 years said, "They have never even inquired for me; I suppose the liability insurance company advised them not to." At best such help it can be seen touches only a tiny fraction of the field.

Not necessarily typical, but illustrative of the sharp practices which are possible under present conditions are the cases of two men who worked in the same factory. A youth of 19 had his right arm cut off half-way to the elbow in an unguarded machine. Failing to get satisfaction in any other way he brought suit. The factory superintendent then offered him "a life-time job and a chance to go to night school provided he would not ask to have any agreement signed." But an old neighbor had had the fingers of one hand cut off in the same plant. He, too, had been promised a "life-time job" as night watchman, but within two months had been discharged on the ground he had been found asleep on duty.

This charge the old man denied. Because of this incident, the boy persisted in his suit, finally receiving after court charges were paid and his lawyer received his "third," $1,345 to compensate for the great handicap with which he must go through life.

Medical help from any source was as infrequent as money assistance. Only six cases of such help were found in the group of 97. In two firms which carried group-sickness insurance for their employees, work accidents were specifically exempted from the benefits. Two tile-setters' helpers were injured while working for a private contractor on a building at Walter Reed Hospital. They were cared for by the hospital. One ex-Navy man received the care to which he was entitled from his previous service at the naval hospital. One employer, at the time of the investigation, was paying heavy medical bills for an employee with a spinal injury; it was said under pressure from the business agent of the employee's union and with the belief that he, in turn, could bring pressure to bear on the liability company in which he was insured for the return of the money.

This same factor of pressure by the business agent of the union was claimed, indeed, to have been exerted in three out of the four cases in which liability insurance companies made any payment to injured employees without a lawsuit. In the absence of workmen's compensation, the carrying of insurance to cover liability against damage suits is a common practice among employers, especially in the building trades. The premiums on this type of insurance are considered high, owing to the variability in the size of verdicts reached in lawsuits. It has frequently been found when workmen's compensation laws went into effect that under proper regulation, compensation insurance was no more expensive than the former libility insurance. The four settlements actually reported in the present investigation were said to be "medical expenses,' " "10 weeks' hospital bills, "$200" and "$100", respectively. One carpenter stated that the insurance company offered to pay his bills for medical expenses, but when they were actually presented, refused to honor them.

Suits for damages in industrial accident cases, both those found in a special study of court records and those heard of in other ways, present some special features. The outstanding impression from this group of cases is perhaps that of the great delay, entailed in court procedure. It was never less than one year from the time of the injury before a settlement was reached, frequently three years and sometimes five. The original plan in studying the court records had been to take suits filed in 1927, so as to get as recent cases as possible. But it was found that practically none of these suits had been settled by March, 1928. The latest group of lawsuits which had been settled to any large extent were those filed in the first half of 1926.

Twenty cases involving industrial accidents were found in the court records during that period, while 21 suits of varying recent dates were traced in other ways. Taking both groups together, 12 of these cases were still pending, some of them were accidents which had happened within a few weeks, but in one case the accident had occurred in June, 1925, and in another in March, 1924. In the latter instance, the man was unable to work and there were three small children. A charitable society was helping until the case should be settled. The defendant corporation had offered various motions to have the case struck out, but would apparently be obliged to stand trial sooner or later. In three of the cases drawn from the court records and three from other sources, information was incomplete and the outcome of the lawsuit was unknown. One case has already been mentioned in which the employer could not be found when an attempt was made to summon him to court over three years after the date of the accident.

Two verdicts favorable to the employer were noted, 10 favorable to the employee and an equal number of out-of-court settlements.

Under the common law an employee can not secure damages at law for an industrial accident if it is caused by the act of a fellow worker or is due to the normal risks of his employment which he is supposed to "assume." Only when the accident is due to defective appliances or to the orders of his employer can he recover. This point of law appears to be well known among workmen in the District and suits are seldom entered except when some evidence of this nature exists. Hence a comparatively large proportion of favorable verdicts and settlements out of court are found in the cases of serious injury about which lawsuits arise. For instance, a bell boy opened an elevator door when the car was not there and fell down the shaft, fracturing his skull and injuring his right arm and ear. A little more than four years and a half after the accident a jury awarded him $2,000, for a regulation of the District requires all elevators to have a safety lock which prevents the opening of the doors unless the car is at the floor.